"Tell me about the last time you saw another man's sack." (1 Viewer)

[larry_boy_44]

We have every Christian who dares think that homosexuality is a sin still being labelled a bigot and demonized at every opportunity. OF COURSE the church is speaking loudest about homosexuality, its the thing that's being shoved down everyone's throat the most.

The reason this happens is because it's the truth. It is bigoted to consider something as involuntary as sexual orientation a "sin." Hiding behind religion doesn't excuse bigotry for Christians any more than hiding behind religion excuses misogyny for Muslims and Orthodox Jews. If Christians can't confront the truth regarding their beliefs, then they are free to keep them private. The decision to make those views public and debate them in public fora is theirs alone. Nobody is forced into public debate in this country.

OK, let me put it to you this way.

If you don't believe in the God I do or that the rules I think we need to follow are from God, why do you care?

If you don't believe in heaven (or you believe what I'm saying it takes to get there isn't right), why do you care?

Its not like it has any earthly consequence what I say... And if what I say is right, then not listening is awful. But if what I say is wrong, its meaningless (and I'll be the first to admit it).

And it isn't the "sexual orientation", its the actual act of sex outside of marriage and/or "lust" (dwelling on the desire for sex) that is a sin. I know people who I consider Christians who are attracted to the same sex, they're just abstinent. The Bible is pretty clear that marriage isn't for everyone, Paul wasn't talking (seemingly) directly about that when he said that, but it definitely still fits.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

http://deadspin.com/former-packer-supports-jason-collins-gets-church-appea-486207770

:goodchristians:

 

[larry_boy_44]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum.

And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

you really think Christians are the loudest side of this discussion? Really?

And I love the "if you disagree with me, I don't know what else to say to you because you're obviously just too dumb to have a conversation" line. Way to stay above the belt

They're absolutely the loudest regarding the "sinfulness" of homosexuality. They're choosing to make their religious beliefs part of the public discussion. That is something they chose to do, not something that was forced upon them. And yes, I think this is obvious.

Then you're either deaf to or purposefully ignoring the constant shouts of pro-homosexual groups (for lack of a better way to say it).

And generally Christians are pretty willing to put anything out there in "public discussion", they just aren't given the opportunity.

 

[larry_boy_44]

You are denying an adult American Citizen the rights of marriage based upon gender.

And further more the religious also try to do it on the basis of sexual orientation.

These are identical to not allowing inter-racial marriage right up until 1967 in some states.

No, they're not.

Marriage was never defined as "between white man and white woman". It is defined in most places as "between man and woman".

They're not seeking to change the laws, they're seeking to change the actual definition of something. Everyone has equal marriage rights in every state.

Theyre equal because you deemed you needed to know what ones race is before allowing them to marry. Or denying them marriage.

Or ones religion.

Or ones gender.

Or ones sexual orientation.

Where in the phrase "between man and woman" is race mentioned?

Sadly, however, it does mention gender.

It does not mention sexual orientation, however.

Thus, everyone has equal rights under that phrase (which is in the definition in the vast majority of states and was understood to be in it in the ones it wasn't included in)

 

[BigSteelThrill]

http://deadspin.com/former-packer-supports-jason-collins-gets-church-appea-486207770

:goodchristians:

Exactly.

 

[TobiasFunke]

We have every Christian who dares think that homosexuality is a sin still being labelled a bigot and demonized at every opportunity. OF COURSE the church is speaking loudest about homosexuality, its the thing that's being shoved down everyone's throat the most.

The reason this happens is because it's the truth. It is bigoted to consider something as involuntary as sexual orientation a "sin." Hiding behind religion doesn't excuse bigotry for Christians any more than hiding behind religion excuses misogyny for Muslims and Orthodox Jews. If Christians can't confront the truth regarding their beliefs, then they are free to keep them private. The decision to make those views public and debate them in public fora is theirs alone. Nobody is forced into public debate in this country.

OK, let me put it to you this way.

If you don't believe in the God I do or that the rules I think we need to follow are from God, why do you care?

If you don't believe in heaven (or you believe what I'm saying it takes to get there isn't right), why do you care?

Its not like it has any earthly consequence what I say... And if what I say is right, then not listening is awful. But if what I say is wrong, its meaningless (and I'll be the first to admit it).

And it isn't the "sexual orientation", its the actual act of sex outside of marriage and/or "lust" (dwelling on the desire for sex) that is a sin. I know people who I consider Christians who are attracted to the same sex, they're just abstinent. The Bible is pretty clear that marriage isn't for everyone, Paul wasn't talking (seemingly) directly about that when he said that, but it definitely still fits.

Why do I care? Because your religion is working to deny civil rights to Americans, among many other harmful effects that follow from negative attitudes towards homosexuality (increased suicide rates among young homosexuals, hate crimes, discrimination, etc.). Is that enough reason to care?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

You are denying an adult American Citizen the rights of marriage based upon gender.

And further more the religious also try to do it on the basis of sexual orientation.

These are identical to not allowing inter-racial marriage right up until 1967 in some states.

No, they're not.

Marriage was never defined as "between white man and white woman". It is defined in most places as "between man and woman".

They're not seeking to change the laws, they're seeking to change the actual definition of something. Everyone has equal marriage rights in every state.

Theyre equal because you deemed you needed to know what ones race is before allowing them to marry. Or denying them marriage.

Or ones religion.

Or ones gender.

Or ones sexual orientation.

Where in the phrase "between man and woman" is race mentioned?

Sadly, however, it does mention gender.

It does not mention sexual orientation, however.

Thus, everyone has equal rights under that phrase (which is in the definition in the vast majority of states and was understood to be in it in the ones it wasn't included in)

Who cares about the stupid phrase. It doesnt dictate America and how we treat our citizens.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

We have every Christian who dares think that homosexuality is a sin still being labelled a bigot and demonized at every opportunity. OF COURSE the church is speaking loudest about homosexuality, its the thing that's being shoved down everyone's throat the most.

The reason this happens is because it's the truth. It is bigoted to consider something as involuntary as sexual orientation a "sin." Hiding behind religion doesn't excuse bigotry for Christians any more than hiding behind religion excuses misogyny for Muslims and Orthodox Jews. If Christians can't confront the truth regarding their beliefs, then they are free to keep them private. The decision to make those views public and debate them in public fora is theirs alone. Nobody is forced into public debate in this country.

OK, let me put it to you this way.

If you don't believe in the God I do or that the rules I think we need to follow are from God, why do you care?

If you don't believe in heaven (or you believe what I'm saying it takes to get there isn't right), why do you care?

Its not like it has any earthly consequence what I say... And if what I say is right, then not listening is awful. But if what I say is wrong, its meaningless (and I'll be the first to admit it).

And it isn't the "sexual orientation", its the actual act of sex outside of marriage and/or "lust" (dwelling on the desire for sex) that is a sin. I know people who I consider Christians who are attracted to the same sex, they're just abstinent. The Bible is pretty clear that marriage isn't for everyone, Paul wasn't talking (seemingly) directly about that when he said that, but it definitely still fits.

Why do I care? Because your religion is working to deny civil rights to Americans, among many other harmful effects that follow from negative attitudes towards homosexuality (increased suicide rates among young homosexuals, hate crimes, discrimination, etc.). Is that enough reason to care?

#### yeah it is.

 

[larry_boy_44]

We have every Christian who dares think that homosexuality is a sin still being labelled a bigot and demonized at every opportunity. OF COURSE the church is speaking loudest about homosexuality, its the thing that's being shoved down everyone's throat the most.

The reason this happens is because it's the truth. It is bigoted to consider something as involuntary as sexual orientation a "sin." Hiding behind religion doesn't excuse bigotry for Christians any more than hiding behind religion excuses misogyny for Muslims and Orthodox Jews. If Christians can't confront the truth regarding their beliefs, then they are free to keep them private. The decision to make those views public and debate them in public fora is theirs alone. Nobody is forced into public debate in this country.

OK, let me put it to you this way.

If you don't believe in the God I do or that the rules I think we need to follow are from God, why do you care?

If you don't believe in heaven (or you believe what I'm saying it takes to get there isn't right), why do you care?

Its not like it has any earthly consequence what I say... And if what I say is right, then not listening is awful. But if what I say is wrong, its meaningless (and I'll be the first to admit it).

And it isn't the "sexual orientation", its the actual act of sex outside of marriage and/or "lust" (dwelling on the desire for sex) that is a sin. I know people who I consider Christians who are attracted to the same sex, they're just abstinent. The Bible is pretty clear that marriage isn't for everyone, Paul wasn't talking (seemingly) directly about that when he said that, but it definitely still fits.

Why do I care? Because your religion is working to deny civil rights to Americans, among many other harmful effects that follow from negative attitudes towards homosexuality (increased suicide rates among young homosexuals, hate crimes, discrimination, etc.). Is that enough reason to care?

I just got married in Wisconsin.

On our marriage license and, as far as I saw, every legal document regarding marriage in Wisconsin it asks for a "bride" (female) and a "groom" (male). It must be filled out with the correct gender in the correct role because legally it is stated that way.

How, exactly, is anyone being denied the right to marry in Wisconsin when it is clearly defined by Wisconsin law that marriage is between a man and a woman and that's it?

Also, in Wisconsin, you can't marry anyone related to you closer than your first cousin unless you are both legally sterilized permanently... and even then, only first cousins. Not saying its the same thing, but we are fine with denying married rights to those people, correct?

 

[Hang 10]

http://deadspin.com/former-packer-supports-jason-collins-gets-church-appea-486207770

:goodchristians:

Butler really trying to charge a church $8,500.00 to speak? Sheesh...

 

[BigSteelThrill]

http://deadspin.com/former-packer-supports-jason-collins-gets-church-appea-486207770

:goodchristians:

Butler really trying to charge a church $8,500.00 to speak? Sheesh...

Or a church really offers 8500 for outside speakers? Time to tax them beeches.

 

[larry_boy_44]

You are denying an adult American Citizen the rights of marriage based upon gender.

And further more the religious also try to do it on the basis of sexual orientation.

These are identical to not allowing inter-racial marriage right up until 1967 in some states.

No, they're not.

Marriage was never defined as "between white man and white woman". It is defined in most places as "between man and woman".

They're not seeking to change the laws, they're seeking to change the actual definition of something. Everyone has equal marriage rights in every state.

Theyre equal because you deemed you needed to know what ones race is before allowing them to marry. Or denying them marriage.

Or ones religion.

Or ones gender.

Or ones sexual orientation.

Where in the phrase "between man and woman" is race mentioned?

Sadly, however, it does mention gender.

It does not mention sexual orientation, however.

Thus, everyone has equal rights under that phrase (which is in the definition in the vast majority of states and was understood to be in it in the ones it wasn't included in)

Who cares about the stupid phrase. It doesnt dictate America and how we treat our citizens.

Umm... Yes, it does. Its legally in most states' definition of marriage and was implied in the ones it was not in. So it does dictate how we treat our citizens since it is law.

Or do you not care what the laws of the US say either?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

http://deadspin.com/former-packer-supports-jason-collins-gets-church-appea-486207770

:goodchristians:

Butler really trying to charge a church $8,500.00 to speak? Sheesh...

Great (attempted) use of that tax free money by the church. Always nice to see it being used to help out the needy.

 

[jomar]

haven't paid any attention to this thread and was wondering how in the hell it was 11 pages. turns out people are debating with a guy who believes in dragons. that answered my question. carry on.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

We have every Christian who dares think that homosexuality is a sin still being labelled a bigot and demonized at every opportunity. OF COURSE the church is speaking loudest about homosexuality, its the thing that's being shoved down everyone's throat the most.

The reason this happens is because it's the truth. It is bigoted to consider something as involuntary as sexual orientation a "sin." Hiding behind religion doesn't excuse bigotry for Christians any more than hiding behind religion excuses misogyny for Muslims and Orthodox Jews. If Christians can't confront the truth regarding their beliefs, then they are free to keep them private. The decision to make those views public and debate them in public fora is theirs alone. Nobody is forced into public debate in this country.

OK, let me put it to you this way. If you don't believe in the God I do or that the rules I think we need to follow are from God, why do you care? If you don't believe in heaven (or you believe what I'm saying it takes to get there isn't right), why do you care? Its not like it has any earthly consequence what I say... And if what I say is right, then not listening is awful. But if what I say is wrong, its meaningless (and I'll be the first to admit it). And it isn't the "sexual orientation", its the actual act of sex outside of marriage and/or "lust" (dwelling on the desire for sex) that is a sin. I know people who I consider Christians who are attracted to the same sex, they're just abstinent. The Bible is pretty clear that marriage isn't for everyone, Paul wasn't talking (seemingly) directly about that when he said that, but it definitely still fits.

Why do I care? Because your religion is working to deny civil rights to Americans, among many other harmful effects that follow from negative attitudes towards homosexuality (increased suicide rates among young homosexuals, hate crimes, discrimination, etc.). Is that enough reason to care?

But the homosexuals are complaining about being treated differently. If they stopped trying to be equal the Christians would be quiet too. Therefore this is all the fault of the homosexuals. QED, #####!

 

[TobiasFunke]

We have every Christian who dares think that homosexuality is a sin still being labelled a bigot and demonized at every opportunity. OF COURSE the church is speaking loudest about homosexuality, its the thing that's being shoved down everyone's throat the most.

The reason this happens is because it's the truth. It is bigoted to consider something as involuntary as sexual orientation a "sin." Hiding behind religion doesn't excuse bigotry for Christians any more than hiding behind religion excuses misogyny for Muslims and Orthodox Jews. If Christians can't confront the truth regarding their beliefs, then they are free to keep them private. The decision to make those views public and debate them in public fora is theirs alone. Nobody is forced into public debate in this country.

OK, let me put it to you this way.

If you don't believe in the God I do or that the rules I think we need to follow are from God, why do you care?

If you don't believe in heaven (or you believe what I'm saying it takes to get there isn't right), why do you care?

Its not like it has any earthly consequence what I say... And if what I say is right, then not listening is awful. But if what I say is wrong, its meaningless (and I'll be the first to admit it).

And it isn't the "sexual orientation", its the actual act of sex outside of marriage and/or "lust" (dwelling on the desire for sex) that is a sin. I know people who I consider Christians who are attracted to the same sex, they're just abstinent. The Bible is pretty clear that marriage isn't for everyone, Paul wasn't talking (seemingly) directly about that when he said that, but it definitely still fits.

Why do I care? Because your religion is working to deny civil rights to Americans, among many other harmful effects that follow from negative attitudes towards homosexuality (increased suicide rates among young homosexuals, hate crimes, discrimination, etc.). Is that enough reason to care?

I just got married in Wisconsin.

On our marriage license and, as far as I saw, every legal document regarding marriage in Wisconsin it asks for a "bride" (female) and a "groom" (male). It must be filled out with the correct gender in the correct role because legally it is stated that way.

How, exactly, is anyone being denied the right to marry in Wisconsin when it is clearly defined by Wisconsin law that marriage is between a man and a woman and that's it?

Also, in Wisconsin, you can't marry anyone related to you closer than your first cousin unless you are both legally sterilized permanently... and even then, only first cousins. Not saying its the same thing, but we are fine with denying married rights to those people, correct?

This really no point in having a conversation about gay marriage. I'm right on that issue and you are wrong, and history will reflect that. I'm comfortable with that, and so are you apparently. There's nothing to debate.

My point was to discuss who was responsible for bring Christian attitudes on homosexuality into the public sphere. I said it was Christians, because nobody has to discuss their religious attitudes in a public forum if they don't want to do so. You seem to think otherwise I guess? I think that's silly, but so be it.

 

[Hang 10]

http://deadspin.com/former-packer-supports-jason-collins-gets-church-appea-486207770

:goodchristians:

Butler really trying to charge a church $8,500.00 to speak? Sheesh...

Great (attempted) use of that tax free money by the church. Always nice to see it being used to help out the needy.

Well, I imagine that they thought they'd get a decent return on the offering that day to more than pay for their $8,500.00 investment but man... If you're Butler you either have the time to speak to a church or you don't...seems pathetic to jack them like this.

 

[larry_boy_44]

We have every Christian who dares think that homosexuality is a sin still being labelled a bigot and demonized at every opportunity. OF COURSE the church is speaking loudest about homosexuality, its the thing that's being shoved down everyone's throat the most.

The reason this happens is because it's the truth. It is bigoted to consider something as involuntary as sexual orientation a "sin." Hiding behind religion doesn't excuse bigotry for Christians any more than hiding behind religion excuses misogyny for Muslims and Orthodox Jews. If Christians can't confront the truth regarding their beliefs, then they are free to keep them private. The decision to make those views public and debate them in public fora is theirs alone. Nobody is forced into public debate in this country.

OK, let me put it to you this way. If you don't believe in the God I do or that the rules I think we need to follow are from God, why do you care? If you don't believe in heaven (or you believe what I'm saying it takes to get there isn't right), why do you care? Its not like it has any earthly consequence what I say... And if what I say is right, then not listening is awful. But if what I say is wrong, its meaningless (and I'll be the first to admit it). And it isn't the "sexual orientation", its the actual act of sex outside of marriage and/or "lust" (dwelling on the desire for sex) that is a sin. I know people who I consider Christians who are attracted to the same sex, they're just abstinent. The Bible is pretty clear that marriage isn't for everyone, Paul wasn't talking (seemingly) directly about that when he said that, but it definitely still fits.

Why do I care? Because your religion is working to deny civil rights to Americans, among many other harmful effects that follow from negative attitudes towards homosexuality (increased suicide rates among young homosexuals, hate crimes, discrimination, etc.). Is that enough reason to care?

But the homosexuals are complaining about being treated differently. If they stopped trying to be equal the Christians would be quiet too. Therefore this is all the fault of the homosexuals. QED, #####!

But they aren't being treated differently.

They ARE seeking a new, different definition for marriage than the one everyone else has.

That's the issue. Marriage IS defined by gender in the vast majority of places. You can look it up, it has been that way for hundreds of years (or more). They want that changed.

I understand why, but to act like Christians are the ones trying to change things is just silly. They aren't. They are trying to keep things the same because they believe marriage is sacred.

 

[jonessed]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense. That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

 

[larry_boy_44]

We have every Christian who dares think that homosexuality is a sin still being labelled a bigot and demonized at every opportunity. OF COURSE the church is speaking loudest about homosexuality, its the thing that's being shoved down everyone's throat the most.

The reason this happens is because it's the truth. It is bigoted to consider something as involuntary as sexual orientation a "sin." Hiding behind religion doesn't excuse bigotry for Christians any more than hiding behind religion excuses misogyny for Muslims and Orthodox Jews. If Christians can't confront the truth regarding their beliefs, then they are free to keep them private. The decision to make those views public and debate them in public fora is theirs alone. Nobody is forced into public debate in this country.

OK, let me put it to you this way.

If you don't believe in the God I do or that the rules I think we need to follow are from God, why do you care?

If you don't believe in heaven (or you believe what I'm saying it takes to get there isn't right), why do you care?

Its not like it has any earthly consequence what I say... And if what I say is right, then not listening is awful. But if what I say is wrong, its meaningless (and I'll be the first to admit it).

And it isn't the "sexual orientation", its the actual act of sex outside of marriage and/or "lust" (dwelling on the desire for sex) that is a sin. I know people who I consider Christians who are attracted to the same sex, they're just abstinent. The Bible is pretty clear that marriage isn't for everyone, Paul wasn't talking (seemingly) directly about that when he said that, but it definitely still fits.

Why do I care? Because your religion is working to deny civil rights to Americans, among many other harmful effects that follow from negative attitudes towards homosexuality (increased suicide rates among young homosexuals, hate crimes, discrimination, etc.). Is that enough reason to care?

I just got married in Wisconsin.

On our marriage license and, as far as I saw, every legal document regarding marriage in Wisconsin it asks for a "bride" (female) and a "groom" (male). It must be filled out with the correct gender in the correct role because legally it is stated that way.

How, exactly, is anyone being denied the right to marry in Wisconsin when it is clearly defined by Wisconsin law that marriage is between a man and a woman and that's it?

Also, in Wisconsin, you can't marry anyone related to you closer than your first cousin unless you are both legally sterilized permanently... and even then, only first cousins. Not saying its the same thing, but we are fine with denying married rights to those people, correct?

This really no point in having a conversation about gay marriage. I'm right on that issue and you are wrong, and history will reflect that. I'm comfortable with that, and so are you apparently. There's nothing to debate.

My point was to discuss who was responsible for bring Christian attitudes on homosexuality into the public sphere. I said it was Christians, because nobody has to discuss their religious attitudes in a public forum if they don't want to do so. You seem to think otherwise I guess? I think that's silly, but so be it.

Ah. Well, at least now that we're clear that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you should shut up because their opinions aren't welcome, yeah. We can move on.

Glad that you finally made your point clear, though. Thank you for being honest about how you feel about anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[Hang 10]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense.That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

 

[larry_boy_44]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense.That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

I don't care about gay marriage, the government can do what they want I honestly couldn't care any less.

But I just cannot understand how people think that Christians started this when they clearly and absolutely did not.

 

[TobiasFunke]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense.That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

You're confusing two different questions.

Obviously those fighting for gay marriage and gay rights are the ones "bringing the fight" on those fundamental issues. But nobody is bringing that fight to Christians or Christianity. Christians are the ones who are choosing to introduce their religious views into what would otherwise be a civil rights/policy discussion. That is their decision, therefore they are the ones initiating the debate when it comes to their religious views, whether they amount to bigotry, etc. If they'd chosen to keep their religious views in the religious sphere (as other religions do in this country for the most part, and as they often do on most other issues) they would not be "under attack." They are the ones who chose to engage from that perspective.

 

[larry_boy_44]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense.That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

You're confusing two different questions.

Obviously those fighting for gay marriage and gay rights are the ones "bringing the fight" on that issue. But nobody is bringing that fight to Christians or Christianity. Christians are the ones who are choosing to introduce their religious views into what would otherwise be a civil rights/policy discussion. That is their decision, therefore they are the ones initiating the debate when it comes to their religious views, whether they amount to bigotry. if they'd chosen to keep their religious views in the religious sphere they would not be "under attack." They are the ones who chose to engage from that perspective.

Do you actually read what you say?

"If they'd just not mention their religious views and let them be violated at will, they wouldn't be called a bigot."

what? You can't possibly believe that. Because I've seen pro-gay marriage people say things like every pastor who preaches that homosexuality is a sin is a bigot. I've seen it numerous times. And it wasn't just "in response" to someone publically saying it on national tv. No, it was just in general.

They would be (and are) under attack no matter what because those who are pushing homosexuality as ok are not going to stop until it is literally illegal to think homosexuality is a sin and/or churches who preach it lose their 503© status and other funding.

 

[jonessed]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense.That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

You're confusing two different questions. Obviously those fighting for gay marriage and gay rights are the ones "bringing the fight" on that issue. But nobody is bringing that fight to Christians or Christianity. Christians are the ones who are choosing to introduce their religious views into what would otherwise be a civil rights/policy discussion. That is their decision, therefore they are the ones initiating the debate when it comes to their religious views, whether they amount to bigotry, etc. if they'd chosen to keep their religious views in the religious sphere they would not be "under attack." They are the ones who chose to engage from that perspective.

Morals and religion are tied. You are essentially asking one side to put aside their moral values so the other can implement their own. That's simply not realistic.Both sides are active in the public sphere. You just don't like the side with ties to religion. That's fine, but lets not pretend you aren't biased.

 

[TobiasFunke]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense.That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

You're confusing two different questions. Obviously those fighting for gay marriage and gay rights are the ones "bringing the fight" on that issue. But nobody is bringing that fight to Christians or Christianity. Christians are the ones who are choosing to introduce their religious views into what would otherwise be a civil rights/policy discussion. That is their decision, therefore they are the ones initiating the debate when it comes to their religious views, whether they amount to bigotry, etc. if they'd chosen to keep their religious views in the religious sphere they would not be "under attack." They are the ones who chose to engage from that perspective.

Morals and religion are tied. You are essentially asking one side to put aside their moral values so the other can implement their own. That's simply not realistic.Both sides are active in the public sphere. You just don't like the side with ties to religion. That's fine, but lets not pretend you aren't biased.

Of course I'm biased in favor of civil rights, and against any role for any religious views in policy decisions as a general matter. I wouldn't argue that.

What I'm saying is that nobody attacked Christian views on homosexuality out of the blue. A LARGE number of Christians, decided to make their religious views part of the public debate on this issue. That was their decision alone, and when it was made they forfeited the right to play the "victim" card that some are trying to play in this thread. Christian views are under attack because Christians chose to introduce them into a public debate, not because gay rights advocates marched on churches and demanded change.

I'm not asking them to put aside their moral values. I'm pointing out that they're the ones who decided to make those moral values part of the debate. Once you do that you can't cry about it if those moral values come under attack.

 

[larry_boy_44]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense.That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

You're confusing two different questions. Obviously those fighting for gay marriage and gay rights are the ones "bringing the fight" on that issue. But nobody is bringing that fight to Christians or Christianity. Christians are the ones who are choosing to introduce their religious views into what would otherwise be a civil rights/policy discussion. That is their decision, therefore they are the ones initiating the debate when it comes to their religious views, whether they amount to bigotry, etc. if they'd chosen to keep their religious views in the religious sphere they would not be "under attack." They are the ones who chose to engage from that perspective.

Morals and religion are tied. You are essentially asking one side to put aside their moral values so the other can implement their own. That's simply not realistic.Both sides are active in the public sphere. You just don't like the side with ties to religion. That's fine, but lets not pretend you aren't biased.

Of course I'm biased in favor of civil rights, and against any role for any religious views in policy decisions as a general matter. I wouldn't argue that.

What I'm saying is that nobody attacked Christian views on homosexuality out of the blue. A LARGE number of Christians, decided to make their religious views part of the public debate on this issue. That was their decision alone, and when it was made they forfeited the right to play the "victim" card that some are trying to play in this thread. Christian views are under attack because Christians chose to introduce them into a public debate, not because gay rights advocates marched on churches and demanded change.

I'm not asking them to put aside their moral values. I'm pointing out that they're the ones who decided to make those moral values part of the debate. Once you do that you can't cry about it if those moral values come under attack.

Your timeline is off. You're also understating how badly those who are pushing homosexuality want to force everyone to see their lifestyle as equal to and morally the same as any other.

 

[Buckfast 1]

We have every Christian who dares think that homosexuality is a sin still being labelled a bigot and demonized at every opportunity. OF COURSE the church is speaking loudest about homosexuality, its the thing that's being shoved down everyone's throat the most.

The reason this happens is because it's the truth. It is bigoted to consider something as involuntary as sexual orientation a "sin." Hiding behind religion doesn't excuse bigotry for Christians any more than hiding behind religion excuses misogyny for Muslims and Orthodox Jews. If Christians can't confront the truth regarding their beliefs, then they are free to keep them private. The decision to make those views public and debate them in public fora is theirs alone. Nobody is forced into public debate in this country.

OK, let me put it to you this way. If you don't believe in the God I do or that the rules I think we need to follow are from God, why do you care? If you don't believe in heaven (or you believe what I'm saying it takes to get there isn't right), why do you care? Its not like it has any earthly consequence what I say... And if what I say is right, then not listening is awful. But if what I say is wrong, its meaningless (and I'll be the first to admit it). And it isn't the "sexual orientation", its the actual act of sex outside of marriage and/or "lust" (dwelling on the desire for sex) that is a sin. I know people who I consider Christians who are attracted to the same sex, they're just abstinent. The Bible is pretty clear that marriage isn't for everyone, Paul wasn't talking (seemingly) directly about that when he said that, but it definitely still fits.

Why do I care? Because your religion is working to deny civil rights to Americans, among many other harmful effects that follow from negative attitudes towards homosexuality (increased suicide rates among young homosexuals, hate crimes, discrimination, etc.). Is that enough reason to care?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense.That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

You're confusing two different questions. Obviously those fighting for gay marriage and gay rights are the ones "bringing the fight" on that issue. But nobody is bringing that fight to Christians or Christianity. Christians are the ones who are choosing to introduce their religious views into what would otherwise be a civil rights/policy discussion. That is their decision, therefore they are the ones initiating the debate when it comes to their religious views, whether they amount to bigotry, etc. if they'd chosen to keep their religious views in the religious sphere they would not be "under attack." They are the ones who chose to engage from that perspective.

Morals and religion are tied. You are essentially asking one side to put aside their moral values so the other can implement their own. That's simply not realistic.Both sides are active in the public sphere. You just don't like the side with ties to religion. That's fine, but lets not pretend you aren't biased.

Of course I'm biased in favor of civil rights, and against any role for any religious views in policy decisions as a general matter. I wouldn't argue that.

What I'm saying is that nobody attacked Christian views on homosexuality out of the blue. A LARGE number of Christians, decided to make their religious views part of the public debate on this issue. That was their decision alone, and when it was made they forfeited the right to play the "victim" card that some are trying to play in this thread. Christian views are under attack because Christians chose to introduce them into a public debate, not because gay rights advocates marched on churches and demanded change.

I'm not asking them to put aside their moral values. I'm pointing out that they're the ones who decided to make those moral values part of the debate. Once you do that you can't cry about it if those moral values come under attack.

Your timeline is off. You're also understating how badly those who are pushing homosexuality want to force everyone to see their lifestyle as equal to and morally the same as any other.

Hint: It is equal and is probably more moral than your lifestyle.

 

[TobiasFunke]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense.That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

You're confusing two different questions. Obviously those fighting for gay marriage and gay rights are the ones "bringing the fight" on that issue. But nobody is bringing that fight to Christians or Christianity. Christians are the ones who are choosing to introduce their religious views into what would otherwise be a civil rights/policy discussion. That is their decision, therefore they are the ones initiating the debate when it comes to their religious views, whether they amount to bigotry, etc. if they'd chosen to keep their religious views in the religious sphere they would not be "under attack." They are the ones who chose to engage from that perspective.

Morals and religion are tied. You are essentially asking one side to put aside their moral values so the other can implement their own. That's simply not realistic.Both sides are active in the public sphere. You just don't like the side with ties to religion. That's fine, but lets not pretend you aren't biased.

Of course I'm biased in favor of civil rights, and against any role for any religious views in policy decisions as a general matter. I wouldn't argue that. What I'm saying is that nobody attacked Christian views on homosexuality out of the blue. A LARGE number of Christians, decided to make their religious views part of the public debate on this issue. That was their decision alone, and when it was made they forfeited the right to play the "victim" card that some are trying to play in this thread. Christian views are under attack because Christians chose to introduce them into a public debate, not because gay rights advocates marched on churches and demanded change. I'm not asking them to put aside their moral values. I'm pointing out that they're the ones who decided to make those moral values part of the debate. Once you do that you can't cry about it if those moral values come under attack.

Your timeline is off. You're also understating how badly those who are pushing homosexuality want to force everyone to see their lifestyle as equal to and morally the same as any other.

You keep changing the subject. The point is simple: you don't get to introduce your religious beliefs into policy debate in public and then whine when those beliefs come under attack. Can't have your cake and eat it too. If you don't want your religious beliefs to come under attack in public, don't bring them up in public. Simple as that.

 

[jonessed]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense.That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

You're confusing two different questions. Obviously those fighting for gay marriage and gay rights are the ones "bringing the fight" on that issue. But nobody is bringing that fight to Christians or Christianity. Christians are the ones who are choosing to introduce their religious views into what would otherwise be a civil rights/policy discussion. That is their decision, therefore they are the ones initiating the debate when it comes to their religious views, whether they amount to bigotry, etc. if they'd chosen to keep their religious views in the religious sphere they would not be "under attack." They are the ones who chose to engage from that perspective.

Morals and religion are tied. You are essentially asking one side to put aside their moral values so the other can implement their own. That's simply not realistic.Both sides are active in the public sphere. You just don't like the side with ties to religion. That's fine, but lets not pretend you aren't biased.

Of course I'm biased in favor of civil rights, and against any role for any religious views in policy decisions as a general matter. I wouldn't argue that. What I'm saying is that nobody attacked Christian views on homosexuality out of the blue. A LARGE number of Christians, decided to make their religious views part of the public debate on this issue. That was their decision alone, and when it was made they forfeited the right to play the "victim" card that some are trying to play in this thread. Christian views are under attack because Christians chose to introduce them into a public debate, not because gay rights advocates marched on churches and demanded change.

Of course they made their moral values part of the public debate. I would expect this of anybody. The healthcare debate has a large moral imperative component to it. I wouldn't expect supporters of universal healthcare to drop that out of the equation because the other side feels differently. It's a legitimate moral question that should be part of the debate. Policy and our collective moral values are tied.

 

[larry_boy_44]

We have every Christian who dares think that homosexuality is a sin still being labelled a bigot and demonized at every opportunity. OF COURSE the church is speaking loudest about homosexuality, its the thing that's being shoved down everyone's throat the most.

The reason this happens is because it's the truth. It is bigoted to consider something as involuntary as sexual orientation a "sin." Hiding behind religion doesn't excuse bigotry for Christians any more than hiding behind religion excuses misogyny for Muslims and Orthodox Jews. If Christians can't confront the truth regarding their beliefs, then they are free to keep them private. The decision to make those views public and debate them in public fora is theirs alone. Nobody is forced into public debate in this country.

OK, let me put it to you this way.

If you don't believe in the God I do or that the rules I think we need to follow are from God, why do you care?

If you don't believe in heaven (or you believe what I'm saying it takes to get there isn't right), why do you care?

Its not like it has any earthly consequence what I say... And if what I say is right, then not listening is awful. But if what I say is wrong, its meaningless (and I'll be the first to admit it).

And it isn't the "sexual orientation", its the actual act of sex outside of marriage and/or "lust" (dwelling on the desire for sex) that is a sin. I know people who I consider Christians who are attracted to the same sex, they're just abstinent. The Bible is pretty clear that marriage isn't for everyone, Paul wasn't talking (seemingly) directly about that when he said that, but it definitely still fits.

Why do I care? Because your religion is working to deny civil rights to Americans, among many other harmful effects that follow from negative attitudes towards homosexuality (increased suicide rates among young homosexuals, hate crimes, discrimination, etc.). Is that enough reason to care?

Here is my problem with this.

Christian values are just as much (if not more) against hate crimes, suicide, discrimination, etc. as they are thinking homosexuality is a sin. Bullying is absolutely against Christian morals (I'm not going to pretend people don't do it in the name of God, but that doesn't make it right).

You're confusing two completely different issues because it gives you a bigger hammer and a bigger target to bash. But it isn't fair and we're never gonna get past the argument as long as you do it that way.

Yes, many Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. But the vast majority of those people also don't want gay teens to be bullied or to commit suicide. Same with hate crimes.

So to blame those things on the vast majority of Christians is just plain wrong. It is. They are just as distraught about teen suicides and hate crimes as anyone else, but they also know that not speaking truth isn't going to help.

Those kids that committed suicide didn't need Christians to tell them being gay is ok, they needed freedom from the spirits that were tormenting them. And they weren't going to get that from being gay or "having acceptance". (and you can quote this if you want, but I'm not going to elaborate because its not going to go anywhere of value here)

 

[larry_boy_44]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense.That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

You're confusing two different questions. Obviously those fighting for gay marriage and gay rights are the ones "bringing the fight" on that issue. But nobody is bringing that fight to Christians or Christianity. Christians are the ones who are choosing to introduce their religious views into what would otherwise be a civil rights/policy discussion. That is their decision, therefore they are the ones initiating the debate when it comes to their religious views, whether they amount to bigotry, etc. if they'd chosen to keep their religious views in the religious sphere they would not be "under attack." They are the ones who chose to engage from that perspective.

Morals and religion are tied. You are essentially asking one side to put aside their moral values so the other can implement their own. That's simply not realistic.Both sides are active in the public sphere. You just don't like the side with ties to religion. That's fine, but lets not pretend you aren't biased.

Of course I'm biased in favor of civil rights, and against any role for any religious views in policy decisions as a general matter. I wouldn't argue that.

What I'm saying is that nobody attacked Christian views on homosexuality out of the blue. A LARGE number of Christians, decided to make their religious views part of the public debate on this issue. That was their decision alone, and when it was made they forfeited the right to play the "victim" card that some are trying to play in this thread. Christian views are under attack because Christians chose to introduce them into a public debate, not because gay rights advocates marched on churches and demanded change.

I'm not asking them to put aside their moral values. I'm pointing out that they're the ones who decided to make those moral values part of the debate. Once you do that you can't cry about it if those moral values come under attack.

Your timeline is off. You're also understating how badly those who are pushing homosexuality want to force everyone to see their lifestyle as equal to and morally the same as any other.

Hint: It is equal and is probably more moral than your lifestyle.

I know the guy who defines morals, He disagrees... You don't have to believe the same as I do, but one day we all will know absolutely who was right and who was wrong. And if what I believe to be true is true, and I believe it is, than no, it is not "more moral" and it is not "equal".

 

[larry_boy_44]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense.That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

You're confusing two different questions. Obviously those fighting for gay marriage and gay rights are the ones "bringing the fight" on that issue. But nobody is bringing that fight to Christians or Christianity. Christians are the ones who are choosing to introduce their religious views into what would otherwise be a civil rights/policy discussion. That is their decision, therefore they are the ones initiating the debate when it comes to their religious views, whether they amount to bigotry, etc. if they'd chosen to keep their religious views in the religious sphere they would not be "under attack." They are the ones who chose to engage from that perspective.

Morals and religion are tied. You are essentially asking one side to put aside their moral values so the other can implement their own. That's simply not realistic.Both sides are active in the public sphere. You just don't like the side with ties to religion. That's fine, but lets not pretend you aren't biased.

Of course I'm biased in favor of civil rights, and against any role for any religious views in policy decisions as a general matter. I wouldn't argue that. What I'm saying is that nobody attacked Christian views on homosexuality out of the blue. A LARGE number of Christians, decided to make their religious views part of the public debate on this issue. That was their decision alone, and when it was made they forfeited the right to play the "victim" card that some are trying to play in this thread. Christian views are under attack because Christians chose to introduce them into a public debate, not because gay rights advocates marched on churches and demanded change. I'm not asking them to put aside their moral values. I'm pointing out that they're the ones who decided to make those moral values part of the debate. Once you do that you can't cry about it if those moral values come under attack.

Your timeline is off. You're also understating how badly those who are pushing homosexuality want to force everyone to see their lifestyle as equal to and morally the same as any other.

You keep changing the subject. The point is simple: you don't get to introduce your religious beliefs into policy debate in public and then whine when those beliefs come under attack. Can't have your cake and eat it too. If you don't want your religious beliefs to come under attack in public, don't bring them up in public. Simple as that.

Christian beliefs were under attack before they said anything on this subject. The whole reason any of it was ever brought up in policy was to attack Christian beliefs.

Silence from Christianity just would have meant that it would already be a hate crime to say being gay is a sin. You're already saying Christians can't mention it in public without being branded a bigot. Just wait until that branding becomes law.

 

[larry_boy_44]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense.That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

You're confusing two different questions. Obviously those fighting for gay marriage and gay rights are the ones "bringing the fight" on that issue. But nobody is bringing that fight to Christians or Christianity. Christians are the ones who are choosing to introduce their religious views into what would otherwise be a civil rights/policy discussion. That is their decision, therefore they are the ones initiating the debate when it comes to their religious views, whether they amount to bigotry, etc. if they'd chosen to keep their religious views in the religious sphere they would not be "under attack." They are the ones who chose to engage from that perspective.

Morals and religion are tied. You are essentially asking one side to put aside their moral values so the other can implement their own. That's simply not realistic.Both sides are active in the public sphere. You just don't like the side with ties to religion. That's fine, but lets not pretend you aren't biased.

Of course I'm biased in favor of civil rights, and against any role for any religious views in policy decisions as a general matter. I wouldn't argue that. What I'm saying is that nobody attacked Christian views on homosexuality out of the blue. A LARGE number of Christians, decided to make their religious views part of the public debate on this issue. That was their decision alone, and when it was made they forfeited the right to play the "victim" card that some are trying to play in this thread. Christian views are under attack because Christians chose to introduce them into a public debate, not because gay rights advocates marched on churches and demanded change.

Of course they made their moral values part of the public debate. I would expect this of anybody.The healthcare debate has a large moral imperative component to it. I wouldn't expect supporters of universal healthcare to drop that out of the equation because the other side feels differently. It's a legitimate moral question that should be part of the debate. Policy and our collective moral values are tied.

 

[TobiasFunke]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense.That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

You're confusing two different questions. Obviously those fighting for gay marriage and gay rights are the ones "bringing the fight" on that issue. But nobody is bringing that fight to Christians or Christianity. Christians are the ones who are choosing to introduce their religious views into what would otherwise be a civil rights/policy discussion. That is their decision, therefore they are the ones initiating the debate when it comes to their religious views, whether they amount to bigotry, etc. if they'd chosen to keep their religious views in the religious sphere they would not be "under attack." They are the ones who chose to engage from that perspective.

Morals and religion are tied. You are essentially asking one side to put aside their moral values so the other can implement their own. That's simply not realistic.Both sides are active in the public sphere. You just don't like the side with ties to religion. That's fine, but lets not pretend you aren't biased.

Of course I'm biased in favor of civil rights, and against any role for any religious views in policy decisions as a general matter. I wouldn't argue that. What I'm saying is that nobody attacked Christian views on homosexuality out of the blue. A LARGE number of Christians, decided to make their religious views part of the public debate on this issue. That was their decision alone, and when it was made they forfeited the right to play the "victim" card that some are trying to play in this thread. Christian views are under attack because Christians chose to introduce them into a public debate, not because gay rights advocates marched on churches and demanded change.

Of course they made their moral values part of the public debate. I would expect this of anybody.The healthcare debate has a large moral imperative component to it. I wouldn't expect supporters of universal healthcare to drop that out of the equation because the other side feels differently. It's a legitimate moral question that should be part of the debate. Policy and our collective moral values are tied.

I agree 100%. I'm not saying that have to drop it. It's their right to discuss their opposition on whatever grounds they choose in public. Once again, all I'm saying is that if you do bring your religious values into the public debate you don't get to whine about it and play the victim card when people challenge those values. Yet here we sit, with pages and pages of whining about Christianity coming "under attack." Sorry, you don't get to have it both ways.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense.That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

You're confusing two different questions. Obviously those fighting for gay marriage and gay rights are the ones "bringing the fight" on that issue. But nobody is bringing that fight to Christians or Christianity. Christians are the ones who are choosing to introduce their religious views into what would otherwise be a civil rights/policy discussion. That is their decision, therefore they are the ones initiating the debate when it comes to their religious views, whether they amount to bigotry, etc. if they'd chosen to keep their religious views in the religious sphere they would not be "under attack." They are the ones who chose to engage from that perspective.

Morals and religion are tied. You are essentially asking one side to put aside their moral values so the other can implement their own. That's simply not realistic.Both sides are active in the public sphere. You just don't like the side with ties to religion. That's fine, but lets not pretend you aren't biased.

Of course I'm biased in favor of civil rights, and against any role for any religious views in policy decisions as a general matter. I wouldn't argue that.

What I'm saying is that nobody attacked Christian views on homosexuality out of the blue. A LARGE number of Christians, decided to make their religious views part of the public debate on this issue. That was their decision alone, and when it was made they forfeited the right to play the "victim" card that some are trying to play in this thread. Christian views are under attack because Christians chose to introduce them into a public debate, not because gay rights advocates marched on churches and demanded change.

I'm not asking them to put aside their moral values. I'm pointing out that they're the ones who decided to make those moral values part of the debate. Once you do that you can't cry about it if those moral values come under attack.

Your timeline is off. You're also understating how badly those who are pushing homosexuality want to force everyone to see their lifestyle as equal to and morally the same as any other.

Hint: It is equal and is probably more moral than your lifestyle.

I know the guy who defines morals, He disagrees... You don't have to believe the same as I do, but one day we all will know absolutely who was right and who was wrong. And if what I believe to be true is true, and I believe it is, than no, it is not "more moral" and it is not "equal".

I know the guy who defines morals as well. He disagrees with you. He says it is ####### disgusting that you think you're better than someone because of who they love.

 

[Please See Mine]

Just the obvious ones, that are about as clear as you can get, such as 1 Cor 6:9,10, among others.

That's the old stuff. For the Israelites.

Not very Christian of you.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV).

Oh noes! Where is the outrage on those? Oh yeah, it includes you and yours, so you let it go.

Did you not read my post? I pointed out exactly the same things that you are pointing out regarding most christians. They overlook these things and focus all attention on the homosexual portions of the scriptures. The other things are condemned as well and homosexuality is not made to be a bigger sin than any of the other ones. The scripture is painfully clear. Practicers of any of the above things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

All of that is SUPPOSED to be overlooked. Its why Jesus came down.

So they could make it to heaven, despite their human shortcomings.

I disagree with that interpretation of the bible. The scripture is clear.

wow

 

[larry_boy_44]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense.That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

You're confusing two different questions. Obviously those fighting for gay marriage and gay rights are the ones "bringing the fight" on that issue. But nobody is bringing that fight to Christians or Christianity. Christians are the ones who are choosing to introduce their religious views into what would otherwise be a civil rights/policy discussion. That is their decision, therefore they are the ones initiating the debate when it comes to their religious views, whether they amount to bigotry, etc. if they'd chosen to keep their religious views in the religious sphere they would not be "under attack." They are the ones who chose to engage from that perspective.

Morals and religion are tied. You are essentially asking one side to put aside their moral values so the other can implement their own. That's simply not realistic.Both sides are active in the public sphere. You just don't like the side with ties to religion. That's fine, but lets not pretend you aren't biased.

Of course I'm biased in favor of civil rights, and against any role for any religious views in policy decisions as a general matter. I wouldn't argue that.

What I'm saying is that nobody attacked Christian views on homosexuality out of the blue. A LARGE number of Christians, decided to make their religious views part of the public debate on this issue. That was their decision alone, and when it was made they forfeited the right to play the "victim" card that some are trying to play in this thread. Christian views are under attack because Christians chose to introduce them into a public debate, not because gay rights advocates marched on churches and demanded change.

I'm not asking them to put aside their moral values. I'm pointing out that they're the ones who decided to make those moral values part of the debate. Once you do that you can't cry about it if those moral values come under attack.

Your timeline is off. You're also understating how badly those who are pushing homosexuality want to force everyone to see their lifestyle as equal to and morally the same as any other.

Hint: It is equal and is probably more moral than your lifestyle.

I know the guy who defines morals, He disagrees... You don't have to believe the same as I do, but one day we all will know absolutely who was right and who was wrong. And if what I believe to be true is true, and I believe it is, than no, it is not "more moral" and it is not "equal".

I know the guy who defines morals as well. He disagrees with you. He says it is ####### disgusting that you think you're better than someone because of who they love.

No, you don't.

(and if you're wondering why I'm willing to say that so absolutely, its because He wouldn't speak that way. Even if God didn't believe homosexuality is immoral, the absolute holiness of God would mean that He would never speak that way)

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense.That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

You're confusing two different questions. Obviously those fighting for gay marriage and gay rights are the ones "bringing the fight" on that issue. But nobody is bringing that fight to Christians or Christianity. Christians are the ones who are choosing to introduce their religious views into what would otherwise be a civil rights/policy discussion. That is their decision, therefore they are the ones initiating the debate when it comes to their religious views, whether they amount to bigotry, etc. if they'd chosen to keep their religious views in the religious sphere they would not be "under attack." They are the ones who chose to engage from that perspective.

Morals and religion are tied. You are essentially asking one side to put aside their moral values so the other can implement their own. That's simply not realistic.Both sides are active in the public sphere. You just don't like the side with ties to religion. That's fine, but lets not pretend you aren't biased.

Of course I'm biased in favor of civil rights, and against any role for any religious views in policy decisions as a general matter. I wouldn't argue that.

What I'm saying is that nobody attacked Christian views on homosexuality out of the blue. A LARGE number of Christians, decided to make their religious views part of the public debate on this issue. That was their decision alone, and when it was made they forfeited the right to play the "victim" card that some are trying to play in this thread. Christian views are under attack because Christians chose to introduce them into a public debate, not because gay rights advocates marched on churches and demanded change.

I'm not asking them to put aside their moral values. I'm pointing out that they're the ones who decided to make those moral values part of the debate. Once you do that you can't cry about it if those moral values come under attack.

Your timeline is off. You're also understating how badly those who are pushing homosexuality want to force everyone to see their lifestyle as equal to and morally the same as any other.

Hint: It is equal and is probably more moral than your lifestyle.

I know the guy who defines morals, He disagrees... You don't have to believe the same as I do, but one day we all will know absolutely who was right and who was wrong. And if what I believe to be true is true, and I believe it is, than no, it is not "more moral" and it is not "equal".

I know the guy who defines morals as well. He disagrees with you. He says it is ####### disgusting that you think you're better than someone because of who they love.

No, you don't.

(and if you're wondering why I'm willing to say that so absolutely, its because He wouldn't speak that way. Even if God didn't believe homosexuality is immoral, the absolute holiness of God would mean that He would never speak that way)

Yes, I do.

(and if you're wondering why I'm willing to say that so absolutely, it is because he would speak that way when addressing pathetic bigots like yourself)

 

[jonessed]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense.That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

You're confusing two different questions. Obviously those fighting for gay marriage and gay rights are the ones "bringing the fight" on that issue. But nobody is bringing that fight to Christians or Christianity. Christians are the ones who are choosing to introduce their religious views into what would otherwise be a civil rights/policy discussion. That is their decision, therefore they are the ones initiating the debate when it comes to their religious views, whether they amount to bigotry, etc. if they'd chosen to keep their religious views in the religious sphere they would not be "under attack." They are the ones who chose to engage from that perspective.

Morals and religion are tied. You are essentially asking one side to put aside their moral values so the other can implement their own. That's simply not realistic.Both sides are active in the public sphere. You just don't like the side with ties to religion. That's fine, but lets not pretend you aren't biased.

Of course I'm biased in favor of civil rights, and against any role for any religious views in policy decisions as a general matter. I wouldn't argue that. What I'm saying is that nobody attacked Christian views on homosexuality out of the blue. A LARGE number of Christians, decided to make their religious views part of the public debate on this issue. That was their decision alone, and when it was made they forfeited the right to play the "victim" card that some are trying to play in this thread. Christian views are under attack because Christians chose to introduce them into a public debate, not because gay rights advocates marched on churches and demanded change.

Of course they made their moral values part of the public debate. I would expect this of anybody.The healthcare debate has a large moral imperative component to it. I wouldn't expect supporters of universal healthcare to drop that out of the equation because the other side feels differently. It's a legitimate moral question that should be part of the debate. Policy and our collective moral values are tied.

I agree 100%. I'm not saying that have to drop it. It's their right to discuss their opposition on whatever grounds they choose in public. Once again, all I'm saying is that if you do bring your religious values into the public debate you don't get to whine about it and play the victim card when people challenge those values. Yet here we sit, with pages and pages of whining about Christianity coming "under attack." Sorry, you don't get to have it both ways.

I'm certainly not whining about it coming under attack. It's a fight after all. Both sides of the debate will come under attack.You were singling out one side for being at fault and "intolerant" of the other. I don't find that argument all that compelling. Both sides feel they are fighting for what is right and are largely intolerant of the other.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Your timeline is off. You're also understating how badly those who are pushing homosexuality want to force everyone to see their lifestyle as equal to and morally the same as any other.

Hint: It is equal and is probably more moral than your lifestyle.

I know the guy who defines morals, He disagrees... You don't have to believe the same as I do, but one day we all will know absolutely who was right and who was wrong. And if what I believe to be true is true, and I believe it is, than no, it is not "more moral" and it is not "equal".

I know the guy who defines morals as well. He disagrees with you. He says it is ####### disgusting that you think you're better than someone because of who they love.

No, you don't.

(and if you're wondering why I'm willing to say that so absolutely, its because He wouldn't speak that way. Even if God didn't believe homosexuality is immoral, the absolute holiness of God would mean that He would never speak that way)

Yes, I do.

(and if you're wondering why I'm willing to say that so absolutely, it is because he would speak that way when addressing pathetic bigots like yourself)

The fact that you call me a "pathetic bigot" shows that not only do you not have any idea about God, you don't know the first thing about me, either.

But, hey, thanks for participating in the conversation. And thank you for proving my point about which side is attacking the other. I haven't said one mean, hurtful thing this entire thread, but the amount of personal insults and attacks on myself and my character is pretty huge.

 

[joffer]

this is almost painful to watch

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Larry Boy, Shader, jonnessed, Hang 10, and Co.

 

[TobiasFunke]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense.That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

You're confusing two different questions. Obviously those fighting for gay marriage and gay rights are the ones "bringing the fight" on that issue. But nobody is bringing that fight to Christians or Christianity. Christians are the ones who are choosing to introduce their religious views into what would otherwise be a civil rights/policy discussion. That is their decision, therefore they are the ones initiating the debate when it comes to their religious views, whether they amount to bigotry, etc. if they'd chosen to keep their religious views in the religious sphere they would not be "under attack." They are the ones who chose to engage from that perspective.

Morals and religion are tied. You are essentially asking one side to put aside their moral values so the other can implement their own. That's simply not realistic.Both sides are active in the public sphere. You just don't like the side with ties to religion. That's fine, but lets not pretend you aren't biased.

Of course I'm biased in favor of civil rights, and against any role for any religious views in policy decisions as a general matter. I wouldn't argue that. What I'm saying is that nobody attacked Christian views on homosexuality out of the blue. A LARGE number of Christians, decided to make their religious views part of the public debate on this issue. That was their decision alone, and when it was made they forfeited the right to play the "victim" card that some are trying to play in this thread. Christian views are under attack because Christians chose to introduce them into a public debate, not because gay rights advocates marched on churches and demanded change.

Of course they made their moral values part of the public debate. I would expect this of anybody.The healthcare debate has a large moral imperative component to it. I wouldn't expect supporters of universal healthcare to drop that out of the equation because the other side feels differently. It's a legitimate moral question that should be part of the debate. Policy and our collective moral values are tied.

I agree 100%. I'm not saying that have to drop it. It's their right to discuss their opposition on whatever grounds they choose in public. Once again, all I'm saying is that if you do bring your religious values into the public debate you don't get to whine about it and play the victim card when people challenge those values. Yet here we sit, with pages and pages of whining about Christianity coming "under attack." Sorry, you don't get to have it both ways.

I'm certainly not whining about it coming under attack. It's a fight after all. Both sides of the debate will come under attack.You were singling out one side for being at fault and "intolerant" of the other. I don't find that argument all that compelling. Both sides feel they are fighting for what is right and are largely intolerant of the other.

I think you came into this halfway. My first post here was a response to people complaining about a perceived attack on Christianity. I think that's nonsense for the reasons I explained. I don't think there's any "fault." I do think there's right and wrong, and I'm happy to say that I'm "intolerant" of the viewpoint that gays should be denied civil rights for no rational reason other than "God says so" or "it's icky." Go ahead and call me intolerant of irrational positions all you want.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Your timeline is off. You're also understating how badly those who are pushing homosexuality want to force everyone to see their lifestyle as equal to and morally the same as any other.

Hint: It is equal and is probably more moral than your lifestyle.

I know the guy who defines morals, He disagrees... You don't have to believe the same as I do, but one day we all will know absolutely who was right and who was wrong. And if what I believe to be true is true, and I believe it is, than no, it is not "more moral" and it is not "equal".

I know the guy who defines morals as well. He disagrees with you. He says it is ####### disgusting that you think you're better than someone because of who they love.

No, you don't.

(and if you're wondering why I'm willing to say that so absolutely, its because He wouldn't speak that way. Even if God didn't believe homosexuality is immoral, the absolute holiness of God would mean that He would never speak that way)

Yes, I do.

(and if you're wondering why I'm willing to say that so absolutely, it is because he would speak that way when addressing pathetic bigots like yourself)

The fact that you call me a "pathetic bigot" shows that not only do you not have any idea about God, you don't know the first thing about me, either.

But, hey, thanks for participating in the conversation. And thank you for proving my point about which side is attacking the other. I haven't said one mean, hurtful thing this entire thread, but the amount of personal insults and attacks on myself and my character is pretty huge.

You've made yourself pretty clear by saying that gays are not your equal and that you're better than them. Disgusting.

Keep your head buried

 

[larry_boy_44]

Your timeline is off. You're also understating how badly those who are pushing homosexuality want to force everyone to see their lifestyle as equal to and morally the same as any other.

Hint: It is equal and is probably more moral than your lifestyle.

I know the guy who defines morals, He disagrees... You don't have to believe the same as I do, but one day we all will know absolutely who was right and who was wrong. And if what I believe to be true is true, and I believe it is, than no, it is not "more moral" and it is not "equal".

I know the guy who defines morals as well. He disagrees with you. He says it is ####### disgusting that you think you're better than someone because of who they love.

No, you don't.

(and if you're wondering why I'm willing to say that so absolutely, its because He wouldn't speak that way. Even if God didn't believe homosexuality is immoral, the absolute holiness of God would mean that He would never speak that way)

Yes, I do.

(and if you're wondering why I'm willing to say that so absolutely, it is because he would speak that way when addressing pathetic bigots like yourself)

The fact that you call me a "pathetic bigot" shows that not only do you not have any idea about God, you don't know the first thing about me, either.

But, hey, thanks for participating in the conversation. And thank you for proving my point about which side is attacking the other. I haven't said one mean, hurtful thing this entire thread, but the amount of personal insults and attacks on myself and my character is pretty huge.

You've made yourself pretty clear by saying that gays are not your equal and that you're better than them. Disgusting.

Keep your head buried

where did I say "gays are not my equal"? Because, again, if you knew anything about me, you'd know that isn't what I think.

 

[jonessed]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum. And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

Gay marriage is a change of the status quo. How can supporters of the status quo be bringing the fight? That just doesn't make any sense.That doesn't mean their position is right or wrong, but I think you are missing the obvious in your zest to criticize Christians.

You're confusing two different questions. Obviously those fighting for gay marriage and gay rights are the ones "bringing the fight" on that issue. But nobody is bringing that fight to Christians or Christianity. Christians are the ones who are choosing to introduce their religious views into what would otherwise be a civil rights/policy discussion. That is their decision, therefore they are the ones initiating the debate when it comes to their religious views, whether they amount to bigotry, etc. if they'd chosen to keep their religious views in the religious sphere they would not be "under attack." They are the ones who chose to engage from that perspective.

Morals and religion are tied. You are essentially asking one side to put aside their moral values so the other can implement their own. That's simply not realistic.Both sides are active in the public sphere. You just don't like the side with ties to religion. That's fine, but lets not pretend you aren't biased.

Of course I'm biased in favor of civil rights, and against any role for any religious views in policy decisions as a general matter. I wouldn't argue that. What I'm saying is that nobody attacked Christian views on homosexuality out of the blue. A LARGE number of Christians, decided to make their religious views part of the public debate on this issue. That was their decision alone, and when it was made they forfeited the right to play the "victim" card that some are trying to play in this thread. Christian views are under attack because Christians chose to introduce them into a public debate, not because gay rights advocates marched on churches and demanded change.

Of course they made their moral values part of the public debate. I would expect this of anybody.The healthcare debate has a large moral imperative component to it. I wouldn't expect supporters of universal healthcare to drop that out of the equation because the other side feels differently. It's a legitimate moral question that should be part of the debate. Policy and our collective moral values are tied.

I agree 100%. I'm not saying that have to drop it. It's their right to discuss their opposition on whatever grounds they choose in public. Once again, all I'm saying is that if you do bring your religious values into the public debate you don't get to whine about it and play the victim card when people challenge those values. Yet here we sit, with pages and pages of whining about Christianity coming "under attack." Sorry, you don't get to have it both ways.

I'm certainly not whining about it coming under attack. It's a fight after all. Both sides of the debate will come under attack.You were singling out one side for being at fault and "intolerant" of the other. I don't find that argument all that compelling. Both sides feel they are fighting for what is right and are largely intolerant of the other.

I think you came into this halfway. My first post here was a response to people complaining about a perceived attack on Christianity. I think that's nonsense for the reasons I explained. I don't think there's any "fault." I do think there's right and wrong, and I'm happy to say that I'm "intolerant" of the viewpoint that gays should be denied civil rights for no rational reason other than "God says so" or "it's icky." Go ahead and call me intolerant of irrational positions all you want.

You are intolerant of people you think are wrong. That's a pretty normal human trait, especially in today's society.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You are intolerant of people you think are wrong. That's a pretty normal human trait, especially in today's society.

It's not about right and wrong, it's about irrationality. I tolerate viewpoints I disagree with all the time. Some people don't like certain environmental laws and regulations. I often disagree, but if they argue that the economic harm outweighs the environmental benefit, that's a viewpoint that I (and anyone) can tolerate. Because that's a rational position.

But I don't tolerate the irrational. Nobody does, and nobody should. It would be really silly to tolerate irrationality. The whole basis for debate and discussion would disappear. If I say "I support Obamacare because I want to live until I'm 250 and Obamacare will make that happen," you shouldn't tolerate that position. It's total nonsense. Similarly, I don't tolerate people who tell me they don't support gay rights but can't give me a rational reason for their position.

 

[jonessed]

You are intolerant of people you think are wrong. That's a pretty normal human trait, especially in today's society.

It's not about right and wrong, it's about irrationality. I tolerate viewpoints I disagree with all the time. Some people don't like certain environmental laws and regulations. I often disagree, but if they argue that the economic harm outweighs the environmental benefit, that's a viewpoint that I (and anyone) can tolerate. Because that's a rational position. But I don't tolerate the irrational. Nobody does, and nobody should. It would be really silly to tolerate irrationality. The whole basis for debate and discussion would disappear. If I say "I support Obamacare because I want to live until I'm 250 and Obamacare will make that happen," you shouldn't tolerate that position. It's total nonsense. Similarly, I don't tolerate people who tell me they don't support gay rights but can't give me a rational reason for their position.

It shouldn't be surprising that many Christians don't find Christianity irrational. Hence, the disconnect.